Did we miss out, losing Burke?

DavidPratt_ wrote:let's get one thing very, very clear. Brian Burke as GM of the Vancouver Canucks won ONE playoff round in his history as GM. ONE ROUND. Furthermore, the 'Brian Burke' legacy (ie. the team that just got knocked out of the playoff race) is largely a 'Brian Burke Team'. That would explain in many ways why we won't be watching Vancouver in the playoffs THIS SPRING.

Brian was very good at giving himself a pat on the back for all the 'culture restoration' and exciting teams the Canucks fielded, but let's face facts.

1. Where the team consistently struggled, Brian was unable to make changes. Despite average NHL goaltending, Burke refused to trade Cloutier.

2. Brian was overly loyal to the 'core' - the same core that just let down Canucks fans a few days ago. When there were opportunities to shake up the team for being inconsistent, Burke made cosmetic changes, but not the big ones that made the team into a consistent PLAYOFF threat.

3. When Brian took over the team he had Markus Naslund, Todd Bertuzzi and assets such as Bure, Mogilny and even Messier on the team. In other words, he wasn't starting from ground zero like he inherited an expansion team (you know, like the Minnesota Wild team that knocked out Vancouver in the 2002/2003 playoffs)

4. Thanks to Dave Cobb and trades that Mike Keenan made (Linden for Bertuzzi and Mcabe) it wasn't that hard for Burke to restore the team to where it was (pre-1994-95).

5. Brian Burke's drafting record with the Canucks was abysmal. Outside of the move to get the Sedins, the team has NOT flourished with prospects who are drafted and developed within the Canuck organization. Out of 30 NHL teams, the Canucks rank 26th in terms of prospects by Hockey's Future Magazine: http://hockeysfuture.com/article.php?sid=8549

Face facts, Brian did a DECENT job as GM here, but based on the team's playoff record and the 'Brian Burke team' that just got knocked out of the playoffs, you can forget about the monument of Burkie being built outside of GM place. Those monuments are only built for Stanley Cup WINNERS.dp

What a pile of crap. This is the same b.s. that your idiot namesake spews on Vancouver local radio. Brian Burke did MORE than a decent job as Vancouver GM, despite what pinheads like Gallagher and Pratt would have people believe.

The sensible way to guage the success of Burke's run in Vancouver is to compare it to what we had before he arrived ... not to what has happened this season.

Before Burke, the hockey culture in Vancouver was ebbing. With Burke's arrival came an improved coaching staff, a more exciting style of play, a team that played its guts out and outworked opponents without trapping, and a commitment to the fans, city, and local charities.

Canuck drafting under Burke was not stellar, but certainly not abysmal. The Sedins are legitimate stars, Kessler is a keeper, Umberger is starting to show why the Canucks picked him in the first round.

Most Canuck trades under Burke were successful. In the long run, we came out ahead in the Jovo trade, the Salo trade, the Malik trade, the Cloutier trade, the Auld trade, the trade that enabled us to get both Sedins, and I would argue that the trade to get Linden and his leadership back was well worth it too.

Before Burke, the building had many empty seats on game night with the team was losing millions every season, the team played disspirited hockey, and the Canucks' fortunes were not something we lived and died with.

After Burke's hiring, the team began playing exciting hockey, the building and seasons tickets have been sold out for years, and the passion for hockey was back in Vancouver like never before.

People forget that the season before Burke arrived, the Canucks finished second last in the entire league. No one could turn around a mess like that over night, but the team still rebounded for a remarkable turn-around in 2000, made the playoffs in 2001, became an elite team in 2002, had their best season in franchise history in 2003, and finally won the Northwest Division title from the powerhouse Avalanche.

In terms of Burke's loyalty to Cloutier and to the core during his time here ... this is seen as a flaw mostly by pinhead newspaper columnists and radio show hosts who constantly call for heads to roll and for the team to be blown up ... but many others would argue that there is good reason to be loyal to a group that is putting up 100 point seasons, contending and winning the division, and getting closer and closer to being cup favourites. If you see this is as a strong shortcoming of Burke's work, then your views are close to your namesake's. That pinhead, Pratt, is always the first to PANIC and overreact with rants about shipping guys out of town whenever the team loses more than two games in a row.

Note that we're talking about Burke's time in Vancouver and not what he's done in the months since he's been in Anaheim (although I would argue that he's also done a good job there so far; recognizing his assets, have the foresight to sign Selanne, hiring a strong coach, having the balls to sign this year's probable Norris winner, and stripping out a lot of an underachieving veteran core while at the same time improving the team).

Another one of Burke's strengths was his intense loyalty to players like Linden and Bertuzzi when attacked by media like Tony Gallagher and others on Vancouver local radio John "the beast" Connor and David Pratt. I cheered when he stood up for Bertuzzi after the Moore incident when TV guys were going to Todd's house and interviewing neighbours. This is a guy you want in the trenches with you when things get tough.

It's true enough that Burke is not close to having a monument erected in memory of work as GM during his time here, but give your head a shake. This is silly point to argue about because no GM will ever get a statue. Burke did a fine job in Vancouver and he is missed (despite what local media hacks have to say).

In terms of Burke's loyalty to Cloutier and to the core during his time here ... this is seen as a flaw mostly by pinhead newspaper columnists and radio show hosts who constantly call for heads to roll and for the team to be blown up ... but many others would argue that there is good reason to be loyal to a group that is putting up 100 point seasons, contending and winning the division, and getting closer and closer to being cup favourites.

The only thing I would suggest is that this year the team did NOT go with 'the core'.

I shall explain.

When you change out the starting goaltender, your most consistent point producer plays with a groin injury for over half the year, you lose 120 or so man games from your top 3 defenders, you have a pile of off ice issues with your teams powerplaymaker, and your #1 center reveals that he has had a hip injury for a long time... how can anyone say we played with the same core???? sure they were all on the same team, but how often were they together -- and healthy?? (hmmm... perhaps when we launched into the 10-1-1 start??). There should be questions as to why guys were NOT benched due to injuries ( I am thinking of Naslund and Morrison) but I can understand the desire of these player who want to compete and play. Bertuzzi is a special case, with special circumstances, but for a guy who struggled so bad at the beginning of the year (with reason), he was still among the top 50 point producers this year - and he finished strong. EVERYONE knew he would have a slow start (and he did), so he shouldn't be a whipping horse (or a surprise). he performed pretty much as everyone expected him to - and there is no reason to believe that his improvement will not continue, especially since he is heading into a contract year.

Don't get me wrong, I am dissapointed with the results of the season, but I remember a lot of people here saying we were a contender at the start of the year and that becasue we had stuck with the core, we had an advantage.

I am not saying stick with every player (or coach) for next year, just don't be hasty and make snap decisions. certain changes need to happen (I think most agree coaching is one of them), but have a little sanity before the axe starts swinging.

The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with untill you understand I am in charge.

Island Nucklehead wrote:Let's give Nonis a chance, DP is right, this was Burkey's team that let this season go in the Tank. Burke's players, Burke's coach, Burke's system. Next year it will be Nonis' team, and he better produce. Somehow we've been considering ourselves contenders for several seasons with no real reason. Yes, Naslund had been one of the leauges best until this season. Yes, we had the top line in hockey years ago. Yes, we had a franchise D-man in Jovo, and an underrated star in Ohlund. But all those Yes' don't a contender make. Look at Ottawa pre-this season. Similar situation to ours (granted they actually made the playoffs last year). We still have a massively talented team, more talented than some in the playoffs. It's possible that one or two relatively minor changes, say firing the coach (Martin in the Sens case), and moving one piece of the core (Hossa/Bertuzzi?) and all of a sudden they are arguably the best team in hockey.This season is a write-off, everyone on the team (with the exception of the Sedin-Carter line, and Bryan Allen), had seasons ranging from sub-par to terrible. Throw in a higher level of injuries to our main players, and you get to where we are now, only several points removed from a playoff spot. The future is still bright. Hopefully Nonis has the balls to do what Burke didn't last season, it's too bad we had to lose this season as proof of what needs to be done.

I agree you have to give Nonis his chance but just remember, Nonis was Burkey's man and patience for a stanley cup in this city is running out.

DavidPratt_ wrote:let's get one thing very, very clear. Brian Burke as GM of the Vancouver Canucks won ONE playoff round in his history as GM. ONE ROUND. Furthermore, the 'Brian Burke' legacy (ie. the team that just got knocked out of the playoff race) is largely a 'Brian Burke Team'. That would explain in many ways why we won't be watching Vancouver in the playoffs THIS SPRING.

dp

What a pile of crap. This is the same b.s. that your idiot namesake spews on Vancouver local radio. Brian Burke did MORE than a decent job as Vancouver GM, despite what pinheads like Gallagher and Pratt would have people believe.

The sensible way to guage the success of Burke's run in Vancouver is to compare it to what we had before he arrived ... not to what has happened this season.

Question: How many playoff rounds did the Canucks win after all the 'activity' you mention above?

Answer: One

Question: When Burke left, what was the organization's status in terms of players in the organization and prospects?

Answers: Existing players not bad (e.g. Naslund, Bertuzzi, Jovo, etc. signed or re-signed) though the Canucks just missed the playoffs. Prospects/draft picks - not good in comparison to the rest of the teams in the NHL.

I understand what you are saying above but the goal of the Vancouver Canucks and every team in the NHL is to eventually win the Stanley Cup and get there by winning playoff rounds. Under Burke's tenure they didn't get there, and this team (mostly Burke players) didn't get there. It's not all about making great trades, it's eventually about winning.

The Specialist wrote:I agree you have to give Nonis his chance but just remember, Nonis was Burkey's man and patience for a stanley cup in this city is running out.

Hah, let's start a little lower with our expectations shall we? We just missed the playoffs, I think our self-image of a contender was a wee bit overblown. Let's focus on making the conference finals or making it to the finals. Getting to the playoffs, and probably past the first round should be a given with the talent this team has. The Stanley Cup requires a hot streak, huge goaltending and gritty performances, all at the same time. Usually it's a crap shoot to see who has it all going for them. Let's focus on getting back in the playoffs and winning the first two rounds. I would consider that a successful season.

XXXCanuck drafting under Burke was not stellar, but certainly not abysmal. The Sedins are legitimate stars, Kessler is a keeper, Umberger is starting to show why the Canucks picked him in the first round.

Too bad we never signed him.

XXXBefore Burke, the building had many empty seats on game night with the team was losing millions every season, the team played disspirited hockey, and the Canucks' fortunes were not something we lived and died with.

Doesn't sound too different like the recent season, except people did pay money to see an inconsistent team put in a half-assed effort, complete with blown leads and poor defensive reads.

XXXAfter Burke's hiring, the team began playing exciting hockey, the building and seasons tickets have been sold out for years, and the passion for hockey was back in Vancouver like never before.

That sounds great. If you are John McCaw or Francesco Acquilini. I don't think you are profiting off the team and neither am I. I want the Stanley Cup to come to Vancouver. Period. One playoff round in 5 years isn't good enough. Period.

XXXPeople forget that the season before Burke arrived, the Canucks finished second last in the entire league. No one could turn around a mess like that over night, but the team still rebounded for a remarkable turn-around in 2000, made the playoffs in 2001, became an elite team in 2002, had their best season in franchise history in 2003, and finally won the Northwest Division title from the powerhouse Avalanche.

All agreed. Which is why I say Burke did a DECENT JOB.

In terms of Burke's loyalty to Cloutier and to the core during his time here ... this is seen as a flaw mostly by pinhead newspaper columnists and radio show hosts who constantly call for heads to roll and for the team to be blown up ... but many others would argue that there is good reason to be loyal to a group that is putting up 100 point seasons, contending and winning the division, and getting closer and closer to being cup favourites.

That loyalty went unrewarded. Who are the Canucks playing in the first playoff round? EXACTLY.

dp

Last edited by DavidPratt_ on Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Burke has been gone for 2 years ... but most of the arguments against him in this thread are predicated on what has happened to the Canucks over the past few months.

The poll and discussion associated with it SHOULD be about 1999-2003 when Burke was actually here, and when the Canucks, over this 5-year span, went from second last in the league to cup contender ... during this time Brian Burke did a damn fine job resurrecting the team and reviving the Vancouver hockey culture.

Dave Nonis was presumably free to make his own roster moves prior to and during this season to emulate that success ... the fact that he chose to stick with a core of players that had success during the Burke era (despite unprecedented opportunities to buy out players and bring in free agents) is not Burke's fault ... and the fact that Burke gutted Anaheim and signed Scott Neidemeyer is an indicator that he would have re-structured the Vancouver roster more than Nonis did had Burke remained here.

yammi wrote:Burke has been gone for 2 years ... but most of the arguments against him in this thread are predicated on what has happened to the Canucks over the past few months.

Dave Nonis was presumably free to make his own roster moves prior to and during this season to emulate that success ... the fact that he chose to stick with a core of players that had success during the Burke era (despite unprecedented opportunities to buy out players and bring in free agents) is not Burke's fault ... and the fact that Burke gutted Anaheim and signed Scott Neidemeyer is an indicator that he would have re-structured the Vancouver roster more than Nonis did had Burke remained here.

Quite frankly, I would take Burke over Nonis any day. The problem I have with Burke is while he made good moves to improve the team, he wasn't willing to make the moves necessary to take the team to the next level. Let's be honest - the Canucks with Burke in the last few seasons were great in the regular season, but also inconsistent at times. One of the big things about Brian is that he makes all the necessary changes up front - he did that in Vancouver and he's doing it in Anaheim. He then goes into the core-building factor - once again, no problem there as you don't want players turned over every 10 games like a Mike Keenan-led organization (or Phil Esposito when he ran Tampa Bay for that matter) and you want to establish a team identity. But what gets me is the loyalty piece. There is nothing wrong with being loyal to your players if they respond with loyalty and dedication to the team and the city. The problem is, if they don't deliver you have to dump them. Truthfully, there were moments when Brian Burke was too loyal to players who just were not delivering. Dan Cloutier is a great guy and good in the locker room. The truth is, the Vancouver Canucks will not win a Stanley Cup with Cloutier in goal. Burke never really brought in anyone decent to challenge Cloutier. Why? Because Cloutier was part of the 'core' and Burke was loyal to him.
Loyalty had a flip side. When guys like Trent Klatt wanted more cash - they were suddenly not loyal and were offered a drive to the airport by Burke.

Nonis in my mind is worse. He deserves a chance to right this ship as this was his first real year on the job, but let's be honest. He KNEW that something wasn't right with this team and he didn't do enough early on to fix it. Even when Vancouver was winning, HOW they were winning was alarming. The Canucks could have, and SHOULD HAVE moved some players to change the complexion of the team. Salary cap or not, it is possible to move players of equal value if a change of scenery or change in team chemistry is beneficial. Nonis waited too long, and instead ended up giving a MULTITUDE of draft picks for players who won't be back. Why didn't he make the changes early on? Probably loyalty. Once again, nothing wrong with loyalty - but it has to be mutually beneficial to work and guess what? We won't be discussing the Canucks' first playoff round next week. In fact, outside of that St.Louis Blues playoff round Vancouver won a few years ago, we haven't been chatting much about Vancouver's playoff success anyways.

Missing the playoffs is a blessing in disguise for Vancouver fans. It means that loyalty or not, Nonis has to do something. He can't take the easy way out and trade draft picks for players. He'll have to move players who have been on the team for a number of years. Loyalty or not that is.